In a decision that could make it harder for internet users to take spammers to court, a federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against a company that sent a man more than 13,000 unsolicited emails.
A three-judge panel from the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower-court judge that under a …

Direct action instead?

Spamassassin?

Contraindicated procedure.

I'm not a fan of spam, far from it. It's been clogging bandwidth, disk, CPU & other resources for a lot longer than I thought it would. I don't like the (I)can-spam(with impunity) law, either.

But this guy's modus operandi is contraindicated ... Pissing off the old-guard in the legal system by pepper-spraying lawsuits is not going to make for good law being written and put in place ... This is especially true when the old guard has absolutely no clue about how modern technology works, much less how it is used.

In other words, spamming the court system with lawsuits isn't going to stop spam.

In the UK I would suggest.........

that you first write to the spammer advising them that their emails are causing you distress and upsetting you etc etc. Then keep good records. Ir same spammers continue then go to a MAGISTRATES Court and lay an information (easy they will help you ,I did it and it was a pleasure for me to have case transferred to Crown Court and see a POLICE OFFICER behind the class screen as a DEFENDANT) You can then issue a CRIMINAL summons for harassment under Protection from Poli........I mean Harassment Act 1997.

This is why the US is the #1 Spam source

Hang on...

"This has led to criticism that Gordon is a "professional plaintiff" who opportunistically milks anti-spam laws for his own personal gain. Those points weren't lost on US Appeals Court Judge Ronald M. Gould.

"For a person seeking to operate a litigation factory, the purported harm is illusory and more in the nature of manufactured circumstances in an attempt to enable a claim," he wrote in a concurring opinion. "

Isn't this the spam version of 'look at what she was wearing, she deserved to get raped?' How a lawsuit can be dismissed because the victim was trying to get spammed is the equivalent of dropping an assault charge because the victim was 'asking for a slap'.

hmmm

"For a person seeking to operate a litigation factory, the purported harm is illusory and more in the nature of manufactured circumstances in an attempt to enable a claim," he wrote in a concurring opinion. "In my view, manufactured claims should not be tolerated absent a clear endorsement from Congress."

Things that make you go... (see icon)

Actually, it should be expected, it is the 9th circuit after all. Generally things that come out of there are one of two things. Either a groundbreaking affirmation of civil rights or some whacky, spaced out, overreaching decision that only a few select other people who did the same drugs that day can wrap their head around.

Direct action indeed.

As long as there's money to be made

The ISPs are the ones that encourage SPAM. You don't see them raising lawsuits against botherders or SPAM sites. There have been what, one or two successful prosecutions of SPAM operators, and take-downs of only a handful of rogue ISPs that promote the practice. These certainly seem like "window dressing" for the real business of selling accounts and demanding more money to "block" this revenue stream.

Back in 2006 I was working for an airline that - legitimately - wanted to bulk mail opt-in subscribers to a weekly deals newsletter. Yahoo! and AOL both blocked them as a "spammer", UNTIL they started paying a few bucks per thousand emails sent to allow them to reach their recipients.

In Mexico they call this "mordida" - "little deaths" - the bites of the bribes to get your work done.

Don't do as we do, do as we say...

@AC 08:52 GMT. Dam, now why didn't I think of that, now all as I have to do is contact all those people in the forged headers who send me spam <slaps forehead with palm of hand>.

Still what a surprise, 'merkin court side with big business, its true what they say on the 'merkin dollar, "In god we trust" (all others pay cash).

Meanwhile in other news,

James Gordon is sued by the MAFIAA for copyright royalties for use for the unlicensed operation of a "litigation factory" and for opportunistically milking the law for his own personal gain. A spokesman for the MAFIAA stated that "Home litigation is destroying the legal industry and that it was merely trying to protect the creative output of its lawyers. If the MAFIAA failed to protect the creative works of its lawyers then it would not be able to invest in new and upcoming lawyers".